Miss America statement

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

From a gay man

No, she didn't know when to shut up. She robbed herself. "For my country, I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." That was the stupidest thing she could have said, and it was very hurtful. I'm not talking about Perez, I'm saying that what she said was ignorant and she came off as an elitist bitch. Also, no one should have to "accept" people's stances when they violate the whole concept of love and humanity. It amazes me that we've had all of these waves of feminism, the sexual revolution, etc., and some people just seem to want to become even more fundamentalist and closed-minded. There's no place for people like that in the world anymore.

[calgarian]

is it me or most of the pretty girls missing parts or whole brain.......Good for us I guess easier to screw them

[D7M]

From a gay man

No, she didn't know when to shut up. She robbed herself. "For my country, I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." That was the stupidest thing she could have said, and it was very hurtful. I'm not talking about Perez, I'm saying that what she said was ignorant and she came off as an elitist bitch. Also, no one should have to "accept" people's stances when they violate the whole concept of love and humanity. It amazes me that we've had all of these waves of feminism, the sexual revolution, etc., and some people just seem to want to become even more fundamentalist and closed-minded. There's no place for people like that in the world anymore.

I don't know who said this, but it's funny.

How is she closed-minded because she has a different opinion than someone else on a certain topic? It's only closed minded if the person has no intelligent ground for their beliefs. Sadly, this is true on both sides. *Some* fundamentalist Christians that oppose gay marriage can't say anything meaningful about natural law, but instead insist that "the bible says so"...that type of reasoning is close-minded.

But, see, instead of engaging the topic rationally the author of this paragraph reduces himself to ad hominum arguments. pfft. It's like saying, "she disagrees with me, so she's an ignorant bitch"

[xlxBigSexyxlx]

I don't know who said this, but it's funny.

How is she closed-minded because she has a different opinion than someone else on a certain topic? It's only closed minded if the person has no intelligent ground for their beliefs. Sadly, this is true on both sides. *Some* fundamentalist Christians that oppose gay marriage can't say anything meaningful about natural law, but instead insist that "the bible says so"...that type of reasoning is close-minded.

But, see, instead of engaging the topic rationally the author of this paragraph reduces himself to ad hominum arguments. pfft. It's like saying, "she disagrees with me, so she's an ignorant bitch"

Looks like we are on the same level

[SMCengineer]

let's get this thread back on track....

Damn!

[Reed]

You guys.... I like the way you all think


Will you all marry me.... I got plenty of love for everyone, we can all move out to Utah and lift weights, eat protein, and fart all day.........

tempting I know

[SMCengineer]

Btw, the question the other girl had to answer was completely inappropriate, whether you agree with it or not.

[Reed]

let's get this thread back on track....

yessssssss

[BgMc31]

"You're either with me, or you're against me." - Jesus

What Bible are you quoting that from? Jesus never said that, Anakin Skywalker and George Bush said that. Last time I checked, neither of them were anywhere close to Jesus!!!!

But back to the original topic, I admire the airhead for standing up for her convictions, however wrong they are (just my opinion). But about gay marriage, I agree with other posts that it's a religious act and government shouldn't be involved in religion. We should do away with government supported marriage and everyone should be allowed civil unions. If a gay person finds a church that will 'marry' them, that's fine, but freedom of religion allows people to discriminate openly all the time, that is why there is a seperation between church and state, or at least that's what it should be!!!!

[D7M]

What Bible are you quoting that from? Jesus never said that, Anakin Skywalker and George Bush said that. Last time I checked, neither of them were anywhere close to Jesus!!!!

I'm pretty sure he's thinking of Matt 12:30

[BgMc31]

I'm pretty sure he's thinking of Matt 12:30

I stand corrected!

[higherdesire]

From a gay man

No, she didn't know when to shut up. She robbed herself. "For my country, I think marriage should be between a man and a woman." That was the stupidest thing she could have said, and it was very hurtful. I'm not talking about Perez, I'm saying that what she said was ignorant and she came off as an elitist bitch. Also, no one should have to "accept" people's stances when they violate the whole concept of love and humanity. It amazes me that we've had all of these waves of feminism, the sexual revolution, etc., and some people just seem to want to become even more fundamentalist and closed-minded. There's no place for people like that in the world anymore.

Why is it hurtful and stupid for her to have an opinion as strong as your? That is what I don't get. And the statement about humanity and the concept of love and is all just as relative bro. Just because you or I think that love is to be permitted between anyone and everyone does not solidify that as truth. What is the basis for that? It could just a seasliy be limited to people who can procreate and there is as strong an arguement for that as what you are saying.

I think Perez came off as a bully trying to force her into a statement that would promote his agenda and when she refused to compromise herself and outwitted his feeble attempt she came out the winner anyway.

Lastly, there is no place in the world for people like her now? Are you serious or is that the hurt speaking? You would have her removed from the earth for her belief?

[higherdesire]

I stand corrected!

you don't say!

[scerpico22]

I think Perez came off as a bully trying to force her into a statement that would promote his agenda and when she refused to compromise herself and outwitted his feeble attempt she came out the winner anyway.

and this is the point...plain and simple.

Perez truly tried to bully his agenda figuring she would give the P.C. answer...well surprise jackass - not sooooo smart after all are you...Perez Hilton phss, what a joke!

[higherdesire]

^^^yessir

[scerpico22]

[D7M]

I had no idea who Perez Hilton was until this thread

[scerpico22]

I had no idea who Perez Hilton was until this thread

and you could have gone the rest of your living days without knowing who he was...you would have been better off

[RA]

Agreed. Some kind of civil union that would address insurance etc is fine.

^^ This is the best statement so far!!

I believe that Marriage is a religious sacrament that was meant to be shared between a MAN and a WOMAN !! PERIOD

HOWEVER...... I believe that if two people want to have a UNION that is recognized by the government for Insurance, Taxes, etc..reasons, then they should be allowed to have a UNION of the same sex,

They should be allowed to have the benefits of a Marriage, just can't call it that. FAIR ENOUGH !!

JMHO and you can go Fvck yourself if you don't agree with it....LOLOLOL

[RA]

[magic32]

Regardless of where we (members) stand on gays, their right to marriage, unions, etc., or on religions other than Christianity (and often many of the fractured factions within it), the point remains that she made a statement based on her deeply held religious beliefs for which she knew (especially due to the asking judge's openly gay status) she could be, more specifically would be, and apparently was persecuted for, via a lower score. However, Christian persecution is nothing new, nor should it be unexpected, as anyone who’s ever actually read the Bible knows. Such stances prevalently led to the loss of one’s life in ancient times, but still do today as evidenced on the national/world scene at Columbine. But this single action has probably catapulted her to an even higher level, and greater stage (at least for the present) than the actual victory would have, though this remains to be seen.

NOT NEW - SHOULD BE EXPECTED

• Act 5:41 - And they departed from the presence of the council, rejoicing that they were counted worthy to suffer shame for his name.
• Act 9:16 - For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name's sake.
• Rom 8:35 - Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword?
• 2Ti 3:12 - Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.

It is nevertheless sad, that today’s worldview is such that a proactive stance for one’s beliefs is NECESSARILY and simultaneously viewed as tantamount to intolerance towards others. Obviously some beliefs ARE NECESSARILY that way, so please don’t bother pointing out how Nazism or some other groups are definitely both proactive and intolerant as they are not in question.

NO – True Christianity is not merely UNCONDITIONAL LOVE (by God or man), as there are certain things that are considered intolerable all of which come other the heading "UNREPENTANT SIN".

But nothing is considered UNFORGIVABLE!

[Flagg]

That over sensitive mincer Perez Hilton can **** off. At least she was honest!

But I never understood why religion all of a sudden has laid a claim to marriage.

[calgarian]

That over sensitive mincer Perez Hilton can **** off. At least she was honest!

But I never understood why religion all of a sudden has laid a claim to marriage.

Cause its easier that way...make religion so difficult to understand so ppl can be easily manipulated.

[RA]

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Dont make ingnorant statements about religion. It angers the bull.

That over sensitive mincer Perez Hilton can **** off. At least she was honest!

But I never understood why religion all of a sudden has laid a claim to marriage.

[Flagg]

The notion of marriage as a sacrament and not just a contract can be traced St. Paul who compared the relationship of a husband and wife to that of Christ and his church (Eph. v, 23-32).

Dont make ingnorant statements about religion. It angres the bull.

I don't give a fiddlers how angry you get.

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[18] Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been stressed.[19]

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.[20] Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s [21] and expected their wives to be in their early teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greek because men were generally done with military service by age 30, and marrying a young girl ensured her virginity.[22] Married Greek women had few rights in ancient Greek society and were expected to take care of the house and children.[23] Time was an important factor in Greek marriage. For example there were superstitions that being married during a full moon was good luck and, according to Robert Flacelière, Greeks married in the winter.

Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.[19] Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.[19] There were several types of marriages in Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.[19] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

So as you can see, religion never came into marriage at all until the extremely ignorant church got it's meat hooks into it.

[D7M]

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

So as you can see, religion never came into marriage at all until the extremely ignorant church got it's meat hooks into it.

That last paragraph from Wiki is completely false. Anyone who took even "History of Christianity 101" would know that.

Just one more example why Wiki sucks.

I don't care to get into a debate about religion, marriage, etc, etc. Just saying, that's not true at all.

Until 1545? What...there were no religious marriages until the Council of Trent...lol

[RA]

I don't give a fiddlers how angry you get.

For most of European history, marriage was more or less a business agreement between two families who arranged the marriages of their children. Romantic love, and even simple affection, were not considered essential.[18] Historically, the perceived necessity of marriage has been stressed.[19]

In Ancient Greece, no specific civil ceremony was required for the creation of a marriage - only mutual agreement and the fact that the couple must regard each other as husband and wife accordingly.[20] Men usually married when they were in their 20s or 30s [21] and expected their wives to be in their early teens. It has been suggested that these ages made sense for the Greek because men were generally done with military service by age 30, and marrying a young girl ensured her virginity.[22] Married Greek women had few rights in ancient Greek society and were expected to take care of the house and children.[23] Time was an important factor in Greek marriage. For example there were superstitions that being married during a full moon was good luck and, according to Robert Flacelière, Greeks married in the winter.

Like with the Greeks, Roman marriage and divorce required no specific government or religious approval.[19] Both marriage and divorce could happen by simple mutual agreement.[19] There were several types of marriages in Roman society. The traditional ("conventional") form called conventio in manum required a ceremony with witnesses and was also dissolved with a ceremony.[19] In this type of marriage, a woman lost her family rights of inheritance of her old family and gained them with her new one.

From the early Christian era (30 to 325 CE), marriage was thought of as primarily a private matter, with no religious or other ceremony being required. Until 1545, Christian marriages in Europe were by mutual consent, declaration of intention to marry and upon the subsequent physical union of the parties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage

So as you can see, religion never came into marriage at all until the extremely ignorant church got it's meat hooks into it.

Yes, some major changes took place in 1563...and your calling it a recent development?

[Tigershark]

I had no problem with her answer. She said what she believed and I respect her for not making a politically correct statement just to win. Perez is just an idiot for flaming her afterwards.

[Matt]

[D7M]

Yes, some major changes took place in 1563...and your calling it a recent development?

what major changes took place in 1563 (the end of the Council of Trent)?

[Flagg]

Yes, some major changes took place in 1563...and your calling it a recent development?

Hmm, lets see...marriage has been taking place since at least 1000 BC in ancient Greece. The reason the church muscled in on Marriage is because sex intimidates them. Does it intimidate you?

[Matt]

[Matt]

[RA]

The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses.

what major changes took place in 1563 (the end of the Council of Trent)?

[RA]

bro, Ive had enough of your ignorant responses. I guess Ill discuss this if someone wants to talk seriously about it.

Hmm, lets see...marriage has been taking place since at least 1000 BC in ancient Greece. The reason the church muscled in on Marriage is because sex intimidates them. Does it intimidate you?

[D7M]

The Council of Trent was so disturbed by this, that they decreed in 1563 that marriages should be celebrated in the presence of a priest and at least two witnesses.

Trent was disturbed by what?

The decree on clandestine marriages (Session 24) is similar to everything Trent did. Almost nothing new. It simply decreed on certain issues, not because they were defining something new, but because there were major abuses.

Clandestine marriages were already forbidden hundreds of years before, say, for example in the Tome of Leo.

[Flagg]

Ignorant? You're the one that jumped on the bandwagon, sunshine.

Marriage has been around for some THREE THOUSAND YEARS, and in the last five hundred years the Church think they have some sort of claim on it. My whole point in this is yes, what the Miss America said was a bit outdated but at least she was honest about her views. And my second point was, since when did religion lay such a claim on it? If two guys want to get married, good luck on them. It pisses me off that these religious bigots get all snotty with the whole idea when the whole ceremony has been around far longer than their outdated superstition.

[D7M]

Ignorant? You're the one that jumped on the bandwagon, sunshine.

Marriage has been around for some THREE THOUSAND YEARS, and in the last five hundred years the Church think they have some sort of claim on it. My whole point in this is yes, what the Miss America said was a bit outdated but at least she was honest about her views. And my second point was, since when did religion lay such a claim on it? If two guys want to get married, good luck on them. It pisses me off that these religious bigots get all snotty with the whole idea when the whole ceremony has been around far longer than their outdated superstition.

except that your info is wrong.

the concept of religious marriage has been around for ~2,000 years, not 500.

It's just history, bro.

[WOLFCRAFT]

Good for her for giving a real answer.

But now she's gonna be considered the gay basher chick for the rest of her life.
Her career is probably ruined because of it.

Guys like Perez Hilton give gays a bad name.

[Flagg]

except that your info is wrong.

the concept of religious marriage has been around for ~2,000 years, not 500.

It's just history, bro.

Okay, it's just history but Marriage was never about spirituality or achknowledging God, it was about two people joining for mutual benefit, usually financial as in the two cases of two families merging.

It was always about a civil rite, not a religious rite.